Just as predicted, VC & special interest groups undermining the community. This proposal was centered on the deployment of Uniswap on BNB, not a behind the scenes lobbying battle about which bridge to use. Pretty egregious behavior. Take note https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/31 https://i.imgur.com/TzgOcfI.png

Partner @ Anagram | Ex-Binance Labs, OG @ConsenSys | Research MetricsDAO

Building, advising, investing 

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

The original proposal was never about the bridge - it was about deploying Uniswap on BNB. While the underlying bridge should be sound, my sense is this never even would have been a debate if the “correct” bridge was selected, rather than the community’s pick

1. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”. Uniswap designed their governance for this to happen.

2. If we go by # of votes like, it’s 113 addresses for vs. 111 addresses against. Remove voters > 1M and it’s 111 v 110…

3. Why is a16z against it?

Founder /kiwi-news, a decentralized Hacker News

The problem is that once the V3 license expires in a few weeks, then anyone could deploy it to BNB, which would be a disaster

While I‘m not knowledgeable about anything you said, BNB is a shit chain that must stop and die.

They're delegates, there are others participating

I'm confused, were there only three voters?

If so, isn't it two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner?

If a16z owns a majority of your governance tokens, then the protocol is working as designed I guess.

I always got the sense that the Uni token 1) didn't accrue value and 2) didn't truly have functional govt.